Energy
Canada could have been an energy superpower. Instead we became a bystander
This article was originally published in a collected volume, Canada’s Governance Crisis, which outlines Canada’s policy paralysis across a wide range of government priorities. Read the full paper here.
From the MacDonald-Laurier Institute
By Heather Exner-Pirot
Government has imposed a series of regulatory burdens on the energy industry, creating confusion, inefficiency, and expense
Oil arguably remains the most important commodity in the world today. It paved the way for the industrialization and globalization trends of the post-World War II era, a period that saw the fastest human population growth and largest reduction in extreme poverty ever. Its energy density, transportability, storability, and availability have made oil the world’s greatest source of energy, used in every corner of the globe.
There are geopolitical implications inherent in a commodity of such significance and volume. The contemporary histories of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq are intertwined with their roles as major oil producers, roles that they have used to advance their (often illiberal) interests on the world stage. It is fair to ask why Canada has never seen fit to advance its own values and interests through its vast energy reserves. It is easy to conclude that its reluctance to do so has been a major policy failure.
Canada has been blessed with the world’s third largest reserves of oil, the vast majority of which are in the oil sands of northern Alberta, although there is ample conventional oil across Western Canada and offshore Newfoundland and Labrador as well. The oil sands contain 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, of which just under 10 percent, or 165 billion barrels, are technically and economically recoverable with today’s technology. Canada currently extracts over 1 billion barrels of that oil each year.
The technology necessary to turn the oil sands into bitumen that could then be exported profitably really took off in the early 2000s. Buoyed by optimism of its potential, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper pronounced in July 2006 that Canada would soon be an “energy superproducer.” A surge of investment came to the oil sands during the commodity supercycle of 2000-2014, which saw oil peak at a price of $147/barrel in 2008. For a few good years, average oil prices sat just below $100 a barrel. Alberta was booming until it crashed.
Two things happened that made Harper’s prediction fall apart. The first was the shale revolution – the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that made oil from the vast shale reserves in the United States economical to recover. Until then, the US had been the world’s biggest energy importer. In 2008 it was producing just 5 million barrels of crude oil a day, and had to import 10 million barrels a day to meet its ravenous need. Shale changed that, and the US is now the world’s biggest oil producer, expecting to hit a production level of 12.4 million barrels a day in 2023.
For producers extracting oil from the oil sands, the shale revolution was a terrible outcome. Just as new major oil sands projects were coming online and were producing a couple of million barrels a day, our only oil customer was becoming energy self-sufficient.
Because the United States was such a reliable and thirsty oil consumer, it never made sense for Canada to export its oil to any other nation, and the country never built the pipeline or export terminal infrastructure to do so. Our southern neighbour wanted all we produced. But the cheap shale oil that flooded North America in the 2010s made that dependence a huge mistake as other markets would have proven to be more profitable.
If shale oil took a hatchet to the Canadian oil industry, the election of the Liberals in 2015 brought on its death by a thousand cuts. For the last eight years, federal policies have incrementally and cumulatively damaged the domestic oil and gas sector. With the benefit of hindsight in 2023, it is obvious that this has had major consequences for global energy security, as well as opportunity costs for Canadian foreign policy.
Once the shale revolution began in earnest, the urgency in the sector to be able to export oil to any other market than the United States led to proposals for the Northern Gateway, Energy East, and TMX pipelines. Opposition from Quebec and BC killed Energy East and Northern Gateway, respectively. The saga of TMX may finally end this year, as it is expected to go into service in late 2023, billions of dollars over cost and years overdue thanks to regulatory and jurisdictional hurdles.
Because Canada has been stuck selling all of its oil to the United States, it does so at a huge discount, known as a differential. That discount hit a staggering US$46 per barrel difference in October 2018, when WTI (West Texas Intermediate) oil was selling for $57 a barrel, but we could only get $11 for WCS (Western Canada Select). The lack of pipelines and the resulting differential created losses to the Canadian economy of $117 billion between 2011 and 2018, according to Frank McKenna, former Liberal New Brunswick Premier and Ambassador to the United States, and now Deputy Chairman of TD Bank.
The story is not dissimilar with liquefied natural gas (LNG). While both the United States and Canada had virtually no LNG export capacity in 2015, the United States has since grown to be the world’s biggest LNG exporter, helping Europe divest itself of its reliance on Russian gas and making tens of billions of dollars in the process. Canada still exports none, with regulatory uncertainty and slow timelines killing investor interest. In fact, the United States imports Canadian natural gas – which it buys for the lowest prices in the world due to that differential problem – and then resells it to our allies for a premium.
Canada’s inability to build pipelines and export capacity is a major problem on its own. But the federal government has also imposed a series of regulatory burdens and hurdles on the industry, one on top of the other, creating confusion, inefficiency, and expense. It has become known in Alberta as a “stacked pancake” approach.
The first major burden was Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium. In case anyone considered reviving the Northern Gateway project, the Liberal government banned oil tankers from loading anywhere between the northernmost point of Vancouver Island to the BC-Alaska border. That left a pathway only for TMX, which goes through Vancouver, amidst fierce local opposition. I have explained it to my American colleagues this way: imagine if Texas was landlocked, and all its oil exports had to go west through California, but the federal government banned oil tankers from loading anywhere on the Californian coast except through ports in San Francisco. That is what C-48 did in Canada.
Added to Bill C-48 was Bill C-69, known colloquially as the “no new pipelines” bill and now passed as the Impact Assessment Act, which has successfully deterred investment in the sector. It imposes new and often opaque regulatory requirements, such as having to conduct a gender-based analysis before proceeding with new projects to determine how different genders will experience them: “a way of thinking, as opposed to a unique set of prescribed methods,” according to the federal government. It also provides for a veto from the Environment and Climate Change Canada Minister – currently, Steven Guilbeault – on any new in situ oil sands projects or interprovincial or international pipelines, regardless of the regulatory agency’s recommendation.
The Alberta Court of Appeal has determined that the act is unconstitutional, and eight other provinces are joining in its challenge. But so far it is the law of the land, and investors are allergic to it.
Federal carbon pricing, and Alberta’s federally compatible alternative for large emitters, the TIER (Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction) Regulation, was added next, though this regulation makes sense for advancing climate goals. It is the main driver for encouraging emission reductions, and includes charges for excess emissions as well as credits for achieving emissions below benchmark. It may be costly for producers, but from an economic perspective, of all the climate policies carbon pricing is the most efficient.
Industry has committed to their shareholders that they will reduce emissions; their social license and their investment attractiveness depends to some degree on it. The major oil sands companies have put forth a credible plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. One conventional operation in Alberta is already net zero thanks to its use of carbon capture technology. Having a predictable and recognized price on carbon is also providing incentives to a sophisticated carbon tech industry in Canada, which can make money by finding smart ways to sequester and use carbon.
In theory, carbon pricing should succeed in reducing emissions in the most efficient way possible. Yet the federal government keeps adding more policies on top of carbon pricing. The Canadian Clean Fuel Standard, introduced in 2022, mandates that fuel suppliers must lower the “lifecycle intensity” of their fuels, for example by blending them with biofuels, or investing in hydrogen, renewables, and carbon capture. This standard dictates particular policy solutions, causes the consumer price of fuels to increase, facilitates greater reliance on imports of biofuels, and conflicts with some provincial policies. It is also puts new demands on North American refinery capacity, which is already highly constrained.
The newest but perhaps most damaging proposal is for an emissions cap, which seeks to reduce emissions solely from the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. This target far exceeds what is possible with carbon capture in that time frame, and can only be achieved through a dramatic reduction in production. The emissions cap is an existential threat to Canada’s oil and gas industry, and it comes at a time when our allies are trying, and failing, to wean themselves off of Russian oil. The economic damage to the Canadian economy is hard to overestimate.
Oil demand is growing, and even in the most optimistic forecasts it will continue to grow for another decade before plateauing. Our European and Asian allies are already dangerously reliant on Russia and Middle Eastern states for their oil. American shale production is peaking, and will soon start to decline. Low investment levels in global oil exploration and production, due in part to ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and climate polices, are paving the way for shortages by mid-decade.
An energy crisis is looming. Canada is not too late to be the energy superproducer the democratic world needs in order to prosper and be secure. We need more critical minerals, hydrogen, hydro, and nuclear power. But it is essential that we export globally significant levels of oil and LNG as well, using carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) wherever possible.
Meeting this goal will require a very different approach than the one currently taken by the federal government: it must be an approach that encourages growth and exports even as emissions are reduced. What the government has done instead is deter investment, dampen competitiveness, and hand market share to Russia and OPEC.
Heather Exner-Pirot is Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Alberta
Alberta’s number of inactive wells trending downward
Aspenleaf Energy vice-president of wells Ron Weber at a clean-up site near Edmonton.
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Aspenleaf Energy brings new life to historic Alberta oil field while cleaning up the past
In Alberta’s oil patch, some companies are going beyond their obligations to clean up inactive wells.
Aspenleaf Energy operates in the historic Leduc oil field, where drilling and production peaked in the 1950s.
In the last seven years, the privately-held company has spent more than $40 million on abandonment and reclamation, which it reports is significantly more than the minimum required by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).
CEO Bryan Gould sees reclaiming the legacy assets as like paying down a debt.
“To me, it’s not a giant bill for us to pay to accelerate the closure and it builds our reputation with the community, which then paves the way for investment and community support for the things we need to do,” he said.
“It just makes business sense to us.”
Aspenleaf, which says it has decommissioned two-thirds of its inactive wells in the Leduc area, isn’t alone in going beyond the requirements.
Producers in Alberta exceeded the AER’s minimum closure spend in both years of available data since the program was introduced in 2022.
That year, the industry-wide closure spend requirement was set at $422 million, but producers spent more than $696 million, according to the AER.
In 2023, companies spent nearly $770 million against a requirement of $700 million.
Alberta’s number of inactive wells is trending downward. The AER’s most recent report shows about 76,000 inactive wells in the province, down from roughly 92,000 in 2021.
In the Leduc field, new development techniques will make future cleanup easier and less costly, Gould said.
That’s because horizontal drilling allows several wells, each up to seven kilometres long, to originate from the same surface site.
“Historically, Leduc would have been developed with many, many sites with single vertical wells,” Gould said.
“This is why the remediation going back is so cumbersome. If you looked at it today, all that would have been centralized in one pad.
“Going forward, the environmental footprint is dramatically reduced compared to what it was.”
During and immediately after a well abandonment for Aspenleaf Energy near Edmonton. Photos for the Canadian Energy Centre
Gould said horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing give the field better economics, extending the life of a mature asset.
“We can drill more wells, we can recover more oil and we can pay higher royalties and higher taxes to the province,” he said.
Aspenleaf has also drilled about 3,700 test holes to assess how much soil needs cleanup. The company plans a pilot project to demonstrate a method that would reduce the amount of digging and landfilling of old underground materials while ensuring the land is productive and viable for use.
Crew at work on a well abandonment for Aspenleaf Energy near Edmonton. Photo for the Canadian Energy Centre
“We did a lot of sampling, and for the most part what we can show is what was buried in the ground by previous operators historically has not moved anywhere over 70 years and has had no impact to waterways and topography with lush forestry and productive agriculture thriving directly above and adjacent to those sampled areas,” he said.
At current rates of about 15,000 barrels per day, Aspenleaf sees a long runway of future production for the next decade or longer.
Revitalizing the historic field while cleaning up legacy assets is key to the company’s strategy.
“We believe we can extract more of the resource, which belongs to the people of Alberta,” Gould said.
“We make money for our investors, and the people of the province are much further ahead.”
Energy
Canada Cannot Become an Energy Superpower With its Regulatory Impediments
From Energy Now
By Yogi Schulz
Prime Minister Carney wants Canada to become an energy superpower. It’s a worthy goal because Canada has rich, undeveloped energy resources. Many Canadians happily endorse his goal because it achieves these benefits:
- Economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.
- Reduce the adverse consequences of American tariffs.
- Additional tax revenue that reduces the mountain of Canadian public debt.
- Improved energy security and reduced cost for Canadians in Eastern Canada.
- Improved energy security for Canada’s international energy customers.
- Alternative energy supply options for NATO allies to replace Russian energy.
- Greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that occur when Canadian high ESG energy replaces other energy sources.
However, Canada can achieve these benefits only by overcoming multiple regulatory impediments, including those described below.
Interprovincial trade barriers
Interprovincial trade barriers impose costs on all industries. Consumers, not companies, bear these costs. A Macdonald-Laurier Institute study estimated that eliminating interprovincial trade barriers could boost Canada’s economy by between 4.4 and 7.9 percent over the long term or between $110 and $200 billion per year. Examples of interprovincial trade barriers that affect the oil and gas industry include:
- Pools that cross provincial boundaries: Producers must build two higher-cost processing facilities, one on each side of the border.
- Gathering systems that cross provincial boundaries: Producers must obtain a federal pipeline permit, which requires a multi-year approval process, to build a pipeline that crosses a provincial border.
- Many minor technical differences: Provinces set their own rules, standards, and certifications for topics such as vehicle weight, length, and safety protocols. These differences increase producer operating costs.
- Professional licensing: Individuals, such as those in skilled trades, must undergo a lengthy, costly process to obtain a license to work in another province, even if they are already certified elsewhere.
- Administrative hurdles: Producers operating in multiple provinces face a complex web of permit, license, and reporting requirements that vary from one province to the next.
- Geographical barriers: The dimensional limitations of tunnels in the Rocky Mountains create a shipping barrier for producers, adding costs when importing large facility components.
For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing interprovincial trade barriers will be necessary to enhance its competitiveness. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act are encouraging federal initiatives to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. The outrageous Trump tariffs have also provided some provinces with a new incentive to lower or eliminate some of their barriers. However, the “mutual recognition” approach may be more symbolic than substantive.
Provincial regulatory incompatibilities
Oil and natural gas producers face slightly different regulations in every province and territory. These incompatibilities incur avoidable operational costs and erode Canada’s competitiveness in the global investment capital market.
Energy industry regulators operate in every province and territory where oil and natural gas are produced. These regulators have independently produced large volumes of regulations that are similar but far from identical. Most of these regulations are derived from those first written in Alberta and various US jurisdictions. Alberta created the first Canadian energy industry regulator because most of the resources are located within its borders.
So far, energy industry regulators have only harmonized the following:
- Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have adopted this standard.
- Directive 017 – Measurement Requirements for Oil and Gas Operations. Alberta and Saskatchewan have adopted this directive.
Unfortunately, only these two documents, among many dozens, have been harmonized. Parochial thinking appears to be a significant impediment to more harmonization. For example:
- Some Canadian regulators participate in the Western Regulators Forum (WRF). However, the WRF has yet to harmonize any regulations.
- Over two decades ago, the Alberta Department of Energy and Minerals sponsored the development of Petrinex with a vision of energy industry-government data management cooperation across multiple provinces. However, the vision has not been realized because the provinces built individual, incompatible systems to protect their turf.
“Producers write more government submissions than technical papers – ten times more. Submissions consume significant effort from technical professionals and include specific oil and gas technical information such as fracking schemes, SAGD operations or facility modifications,” says Granger Low, of Regaware Systems Ltd. “When producers can easily search previous submissions using the artificial intelligence of AppIntel AI, they take advantage of Alberta’s uniquely remarkable oil and gas technical advances, and avoid the delays related to over-regulation and resubmission.”
For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, harmonizing more provincial and territorial oil and natural gas industry regulations will be required to improve its competitiveness.
Provincial regulatory issues
Dealing with regulations is a cost that all oil and natural gas producers bear. Regulations are desirable and necessary to a point. Issues where the energy industry regulators could improve performance include:
- Reducing and simplifying the enormous number of directives. The issue is that the directives contain extensive related best practices that, while valuable, become indistinguishable from regulatory requirements.
- Reducing and simplifying the permit application processes for wells, facilities and pipelines. How the current complexity helps regulators fulfill their mandate is unclear.
- Simplifying reporting and compliance assessment would reduce administrative costs for both producers and regulators.
- Eliminating the APMC in Alberta would reduce producers’ administrative costs and increase Crown royalty revenue. This article describes the details: It’s Time to Retire the APMC – The APMC Mandate Has Expired, Its Cost is Now Avoidable.
- Failing to address data quality issues for wells, digital well logs, and cores undermines one of Alberta’s competitive advantages.
For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing the cost of regulatory applications and compliance is a component of improving its competitiveness.
Taxation disparities
Oil and natural gas producers encounter taxation disparities across provinces. The following disparities affect geographic investment decisions:
- Crown Royalty and Freehold Production Tax calculations and related settlement processes vary considerably by province and type of production.
- Corporate income tax rates and reporting vary by province.
- The combined GST and PST/HST rate varies from 5% in Alberta to 15% in some other provinces.
- Oil and natural gas facility property tax rates and reporting vary by province.
Simplifying these taxation disparities would reduce administrative costs for both producers and the Crown. The combination of taxes and fees that producers pay in Canada is enough to cause some to invest in more profitable jurisdictions.
For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing and harmonizing taxation disparities is a prerequisite to encourage more investment in production.
Additional costs that every producer accepts
Overcoming impediments is particularly important to Canadian competitiveness because the Canadian oil and gas industry incurs higher operating costs than the industry does in most other jurisdictions. The higher cost categories include:
- Wages and benefits.
- Health, safety and environmental standards.
- Abandonment standards.
- Disclosure of intellectual property in publicly-accessible permit application documents.
- Lower staff productivity and added heating costs due to lower winter temperatures.
No one is suggesting lowering these Canadian standards and expectations. However, the associated costs increase the urgency of reducing other regulatory impediments to maintain Canada’s competitiveness.
Conclusions
Canada has the resources to become an energy superpower and realize the immense economic, strategic, and environmental benefits that are available. Policymakers can contribute by harmonizing regulations and removing interprovincial trade barriers to ensure investment in Canadian energy is competitive on world financial markets.
Yogi Schulz has over 40 years of experience in information technology in various industries. He writes for Engineering.com, EnergyNow.ca, EnergyNow.com and other trade publications. Yogi works extensively in the petroleum industry to select and implement financial, production revenue accounting, land & contracts, and geotechnical systems. He manages projects that arise from changes in business requirements, the need to leverage technology opportunities, and mergers. His specialties include IT strategy, web strategy, and systems project management.
-
Business2 days agoCarney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies
-
espionage2 days agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs
-
COVID-192 days agoCrown still working to put Lich and Barber in jail
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s Deficit Numbers Deserve Scrutiny After Trudeau’s Forecasting Failures
-
Business2 days agoCarney budget continues misguided ‘Build Canada Homes’ approach
-
International1 day agoKazakhstan joins Abraham Accords, Trump says more nations lining up for peace
-
armed forces19 hours agoIt’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
-
Business1 day agoHere’s what pundits and analysts get wrong about the Carney government’s first budget




